Simon Riggs wrote: > > For me, clarity and > > candor gain a lot more credibility than trying to cover over missing > > functionality in the past. I am not saying we have to be so honest that > > we bash PostgreSQL, but in cases where we adjust wording to try to > > prevent ourselves from looking bad, it is best to be honest and clear > > about our limitations. I think in the long run it gains us lots of > > credibility (and ultimately volunteers). > > > > I see this as merely a half-full/half-empty viewpoint issue. > > Honesty and clarity are wonderful things and I subscribe to them. Using > them only to describe your own viewpoint is not a reasonable point to > make in a hopefully rational discussion about writing style... > > I'll go back to my docs now, but I guess we may relive this again when > you see some of the honest, clear and positive changes I am suggesting. > :)
I wasn't suggesting yours were dishonest. I was saying that I was aiming for the clearest style whether is makes PostgreSQL look good or not. I figured saying "in the past you had to do X" was clearer than saying "you don't have to do X anymore". I am, of course, am open to the community's feedback on this. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
